1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AZMAN HUSSAIN, Case No. 22-cv-02258-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 9 v. SEAL

10 BURGER KING CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 18 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to file documents under seal. Dkt. 14 No. 187. The Court GRANTS the motion. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 17 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 18 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 19 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 20 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 21 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 22 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 23 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 24 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 25 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 26 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 27 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 1 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 2 Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 3 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 4 without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

5 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 6 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 7 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 8 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”

Civil Local Rule 79-5 9 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 10 document or portions of it under seal must explain “(i) the legitimate private or public interests 11 that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less 12 restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The request must be 13 “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Id. at 79-5(c)(3). 14 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 15 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 16 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 17 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 18 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 19

, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 20 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 21 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 Defendant seeks to seal two exhibits related to its motion to compel arbitration or transfer 24 the case. Because the motion to compel arbitration is more than tangentially related to the 25 underlying action, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard. The exhibits are 26 screenshots of Defendant’s internal records regarding Plaintiff, contained in Burger King’s 27 customer data collection system. 1 Because the documents divulge confidential business information unrelated to the public’s 2 || understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, the Court finds that Defendant has 3 established compelling reasons to file the documents under seal. 4 First, the Court did not rely on the documents that are the subject of the motion to seal. 5 || Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case before the Court ruled on the motion to compel arbitration. 6 || See Dkt. No. 28. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial 7 || proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal. See 8 || In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 9 || Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further diminished in 10 || light of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 11 Certification.”). Second, the documents reveal Defendant’s proprietary system for collecting and 12 analyzing customer information relating to customer purchases. Courts have found that 5 13 “confidential business information” in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of 14 || confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” 3 15 standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD,

, at *2 a 16 || (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information “prevent[ed] competitors from 3 17 || gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); Rodman v. Safeway, Inc., No. 11- 18 CV-03003-JST,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2013) (finding sealable “internal 19 || information not otherwise made available” regarding business “transaction and customer data”). 20 || Moreover, the request is narrowly tailored because Defendant seeks to seal the content and format 21 of its internal systems, not the purchase history relevant to the motion to compel. 22 || I. CONCLUSION 23 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the administrative motion to seal. Dkt. No. 18. 24 Documents that are the subject of this motion will remain under seal. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(g)(1). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: 3/15/2023 27 Apipcred 3 Mbt). 28 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge